ML20100B707
| ML20100B707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1995 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OLA-3-I-MOS-242, NUDOCS 9601190325 | |
| Download: ML20100B707 (14) | |
Text
.. -. _... -. - _ -. - ~ -
.... ~.
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSloN f-405A4 Z9'2 cheN WWM LM EXHIBITNO. b b
In the matt.r of G.oraia !'nwy Co et al., Voatie Units 1 & 2 O Staff O APpticant Effnt v nor O oth.,
U0CKFTED D Identity d 6.iv.1 o R.J.c,.d R. port., if b H C om 9//G4(
witn.u EA-56Em MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 17, 1995
,95 00120 P4 :36 MEETING WITH BILL BURMEISTER, KENNY STOKES 7:50 A.M.
j CFFICE F CCRE]'py I explained that I had been requested by GeorcjiNoh.#u?pWiCE
~
C wn.
nanagement to look into an issue which had ar.sen in the context r f the license amendment proceeding.
I explained to Mr. Stokes that i
I was D91 representing him in our discussions and that no attorney-client privilege applied between us.
I also stated that Georgia i
Power may waive any attorney-client privileges which the Company had associated with our discussions.
I further explained that Georgia Power had an affirmative obligation to inform Licensing Boards of certain matters which the licensee becomes aware of during the course of proceedings, including inaccuracies in testimony.
I did not tell Mr. Stokes that his testimony was in question.
I explained that the purpose of my meeting was to determine whether such an issue was present.
Bill Burmeister was present to represent Georgia Power management in our discussions.
I then explained that, if he desired, he could retain legal counsel of his own prior to discussion of matters with me.
His response was that j
he did not see a need for any attorney because he had told the truth at the license amendment proceeding.
I then asked Mr. Stokes the same questions that are contained in the hearing transcript of June 5, 1995 at pages 7284; Q.
Have you yourself ever found any water in the diesel pneumatic system at Vogtle?
- p h 9601190325 950915 PDR ADOCK 05000424 t
C PDR
1 1
I Q.
And have you ever been made aware that anybody else has i
found any water within that system?
i Mr. Stokes gave me the same answers that he had provided in the i
Licensing Board hearing, "no."
[
Mr. Burmeister, apparently with independent knowledge, then i
asked about the " bubble test" introduction event.
Mr.
Stokes l
explained that he knew about the bubble test event and had i
disclosed this in his testimony at the hearing.
l I then asked the following question:
f i
Q.
During the last Unit 2 outage, were you made aware that i
anyone else found any water within the diesel pneumatic i
system?
4 In response, Mr. Stokes said that Robert Johnston or one of the other engineers mentioned water coming out of gauges, that he (the engineer) noticed spray as he was doing whatever test they would do.
No one seemed to be very concerned about this at the time, i
The moisture was in a " dead area" and wouldn't pass into the j
pneumatic system, Mr. Stokes explained.
He said that the Cooper t
l engineer had said that he (Cooper) was "used to finding it there" at plants.
i I then asked "Is that water in the diesel pneumatic system?"
r Stokes response was "Yes, in a dead portion of the system.
It l
doesn't, even if there's leakage (of moisture into that space),
- i i
travel anywhere."
He explained that if you do the same test (meaning " activity") at the " instrument valve" (meaning 0-100 psi valve af ter the pressure regulator) he understood from the engineer that you wouldn't get the same phenomenon.
He explained "I haven't seen it" and that, according to Johnston or whoever told him abou it, it was " normal" to have this phenomenon at the 250 psi line gauge.
I asked him whether the pressure at the gauge where the moisture was found was actually 250 or 60 psi.
He stated that he wasn't absolutely sure and would have to confirm with a drawing.
I asked him about the exact location where Johnston made his observations.
Stokes said he thought Johnston said on the "back of the gauges", but he wasn't sure.
He thought it was the 250 psi gauges for starting air.
He said he wasn't sure, that he didn't specifically remember.
I asked Mr. Stokes whether that location was normally isolated from the control air system.
He said he would have to look at a drawing.
If the air was at 250 psi, it would go through the regulator and reduce to 60 psi.
Mr. Stokes asked whether I knew if it was 250 or 60 psi.
I said I wasn't
- sure, I hadn't yet talked to anyone involved and no one had testified about it.
Mr. Stokes then volunteered to get a drawing.
j
[While Mr.
Stokes went to obtain a drawing, Mr.
Burmeister suggested that Mr. Stokes frame of mind in answering the questions which I had initially read might have been related to operational '
activities rather than non-operational
" maintenance / outage" activities.
Mr. Burmeister said that Mr. Stokes didn't see the j
1 issue as a safety issue.
He [Mr. Stokes) didn't consider, with his technical judgment, that this was a " water" issue for the pneumatic system.]
Note:
During our initial discussions Mr. Stokes referred to Johnston's observations as " water on the back side of the gauges" on several occasions.
When Mr. Stokes returned with his drawing he identified the location as associated with the "T" between the isolation valve and the 0-300 psi pressure gauge coming off the starting air supply line.
)
I asked whether Mr. Stokes recalled the issue of water in the gauge when he was questioned by the Board or the Intervenor.
He said that he did not recall it in either instance.
His explanation was that he did not recall it because it seemed insignificant at the time of the event and, therefore, the event did not make an impression which he would recall later at the hearings.
Mr. Stokes went on to say that while he still considers the Johnson observations insignificant, he wanted to make it clear that someone had reported it to him.
He stated that the comment to him was in the nature of an "oh, by the way" comment.
~. _ _. _ _
i I asked him whether there was a technical reason why he did i
not remember the observation, such as the isolation valve being closed during operation. Mr. Stokes said the only technical reason 1
that he can think of as to why he did not remember it was that the l
{
observation was insignificant.
Mr. Stokes said that today he would l
)
say "yes, moisture water was found in the Unit 2 pneumatic control 1
system."
t In response to further questioning, he stated that either i
Robert Johnston or a Mr. Woodford (?) were the two individuals who i
l may.have told him about this.
He was unaware of any maintenance work order or deficiency card being generated.
As presented to I
him, the moisture on the back of the gauges was viewed by the i
i engineers as a "no never mind."
Mr. Stokes said that he still never has seen anything on filters or in the " bowl" [60 psi) or signs which would cause "us" concerns.
Also, no water or moisture i
had been observed historically in the receiver.
He explained that the location in issue was a " stagnate place." He speculated that maybe a little leak in the gauges might 1
]
have been a source of moisture, but stated that he did not know why moisture would end up at the location.
In response to further questioning, Mr. Stokes said, again, i
that his understanding, from Johnston or whomever brought it to his i
I attention was that this phenomenon was a general occurrence j
1
-s-I
everywhere at the gauges.
He then said that the water or moisture "was not getting into the system."
It will be back within 18 months based upon Mr.
Johnston's statements, according to Mr.
Stokes, and it is not a DC condition.
Stokes said that the only other person he is aware of associated with the licensing proceeding who was made aware of this observation was Ken Burr; he commented that Burr worked the same shifts as he.
He does not remember how he was told, but both were made aware of the observation.
[ Bill Burmeister asked why he didn't think of this instance at the licensing proceeding.
Mr.
Stokes said that he was concentrating on the time frame when events occurred that the licensing proceeding was concerned about and that he "just didn't recall" this 1995 report to him.]
I asked Mr. Stokes that, with the knowledge of the Licensing Board proceeding and the issues involved in it, why didn't he think this observation was significant.
He explained that on a day-to-day basis he does nc,c relate to the Licensing Board activities --
he deals with technical issues as they come up.
As he views it, this observation is a separate technical issue.
He offered that he was "at ease with our technical actions" in this instance.
I asked whether he would like to amend his prior testimony in the proceeding.
He said yes, if he made a blanket statement in response to a question like I read initially.
t
- I
i In response to a question about "how much water" was observed j
and reported to him, Mr. Stokes stated that he did not remember the exact words used, but that he had the impression that it was a " fog or mist."
He said at the time that he "almost didn't believe it
[the report)."
Stokes does not recall exactly why Robert Johnston was performing work; he speculated that it was not likely the first time that this location was opened, but that he didn't know the i
frequency of testing the gauges for accuracy.
Either Mr.
Burmeister or Mr. Stokes suggested that the frequency and results j
would be 3 matter of record.
Mr. Stokes said that the isolation valves in the gauge line are normally open.
The valves are located about six to eight inches or less "off the back of the meter [ meaning gauge]."
He speculated that a five year frequency of opening the "T"
was likely.
[Mr. Burmeister observed that the T was on a leg without continuous
- flow, or any
- flow, in contrast to some flow of pressurized air during diesel operation activities through other air lines.]
Mr. Stokes did not know where the moisture comes from.
He then speculated ' that the source could be a small leak to the atmosphere in the pressure gauge.
He said there is no evidence of
i t
r water
" upstream"
[towards the rece.ivers) and no evidence of moisture at the " downstream" 60 psi locations.
When asked, once again, why he did not recall the event during l
the hearings, Mr. Stokes said that he does not know why he did not mention it, except that it didn't stand out in his mind.
"Like so many other things in the case,"
he
- stated, "this event is irrelevant, but they'll take it as highly relevant, since Allen's (Mosbaugh) whole case is meandering around moisture in the system."
I He concluded " moisture still wasn't in the system."
The location of the gauge is " downstream of where we do moisture checks, upstream of where we do moisture checks." Air flowing to the logic e3cments, to the board, and to the Calcon switches should still be believed to be free of moisture due to the checks Georgia Power performs for moisture.
Mr. Stokes again confirmed that he doesn't recall actually seeing the moisture; the moisture was reported to him.
When asked if the manner in which he became aware of this observation may have effected how he viewed it, Mr. Stokes again 1
explained that "it was a no never mind in Johnston's mind, so it probably didn't make a huge impact on, me.
That lessened my thoughts of its significance."
[ Bill Burmeister observed that if the system is opened at the T,
and-then the system was pressurized with atmosphere air, you might get water from that activity.
In other words, the isolation valve in the line to the gauges would be closed, the "T"
- opened, and the isolation valve: gauge line repressurized with atmosphere air which had not been dried.
This could condense moisture in the stub line during the test.
In other words, liquid would be formed from high humidity /non-dried air.
The liquid would stay in the line after the "T" was capped.
Upon reopening the moisture would have been there since the last time of gauge testing.]
Mr. Stokes did not recall other occurrences and he didn't recall similar reports on other diesel trains.
Either he or Mr.
Burmeister suggested that in the future the line could be purged with dried air after calibration / calibration verification of the pressure gauge.
[Burmeister then stated that, based upon what Mr.
Stokes said, this was not a large amount of moisture which would be i
i a problem for operability.]
j l
1 I then thanked Mr. Stokes and asked him if there was anything that he would like to add.
He said no, that we had covered his knowledge of Johnston's observations. Our discussion ended at 8:50 i
a.m.
[ Af ter Mr. Stokes lef t I met briefly with Mr. Burmeister.
Mr.
Burmeister said that the licensing proceeding had not effected Mr.
il J
Stokes' normal job approach.
Although he had spent a lot of time in testifying he had remained level-headed in problem solving and focused on his assignments.
He did not hesitate to continue to do nood work and he had good technical judgment.
He had not been adversely af fected by the proceeding personally, even though it had placed a large demand on him.
Mr. Burmeister stated his opinion that because Mr.
Johnston's observations were not technically significant at the time, Mr. Stokes simply did not recall them except in response to a specific question that focused Mr. Stokes on a particular time frame.).
4 a
l lekml li t% MMO JUMRrKIOKla ats 03/12H 10 cism l '
i
1!?-17het>
8ll Op m 'ic,f0+rlD/ W
. J/- Q
^
7 m..,
02N O(sl*hN, b kbe[bc/is>>
Y/ /M~.
Ve/?+f -CLfl
'.m g 4,Q Tr. n d q.,
%.-, ~
i 9 a.n a,el a,.w.t i,-w-u,uk, (s - -,6 J)
L s m ~{ f Tsh,L Q
% o,,
.4sd
@ u-:t t asp L"
A A-p-w ~L sy
&mn J d Hr o u y od f v%)
s~%
gnp,9 d
sp y Wy Al
.b.
msD kt n e n-y sey a
v4
,a
- e. Zud, ApyitL:
p -,,
>yJ d p~LL sys?
(p 5 kk A
n
/r p,
, d <~) p%lf 4(4% sp c
p, A 9 TA
.be>A, n
/u L 43~
At
+g. If y o-
+~d 2,
s-k,
s-1 y/,- ny
.7 v
() L wr Sw it "
() a p
%x 4u h u~
, y %A.
()Co,C.,j:,;,+ A....
A w.
@a400
~u k
s..I Jo h o ~ pg w p:
y f
n J
v<.
~1 n, pr 1,9 shky M
,,jM l +
c,- M /
?
G w w')-,
T i.w P / s a / J~,.
Ynf 2p s,y' M~
7,<.,-
A m e 9 - />
/
Quko:
w a,
t =t w c w F. l. %
A.
7 6: II-f.~4n.d--.L 44 (n> 7.y d H
~~.6 L-t7. L b>,y
,m,,
4 9,4 3: y '+ w a
.N
,4 y1 ~4, &
7
s.1,_ g y g p '
U(p ft,
.3.,
h, A nlo.o yy & 3,s u.
'D. ) y,
n -.A.A M
f)>,-(.'
14 w '
do.9. & J b we y
H..
9, -)
,~,,$.f 4 7"2E!0.I t'.
Sh'l h'f 3 >~
b <s q,1-J, 'o ln So
~e.
4 JLc n
% k. Q e,u h, L 3
<c~
? rM.
of hL wuti n6-c~ > dl,].
, ->w w.,, u u s,.,
y
.p.
n n
Gb 1 >k,tu d> pM h a, b, A.f' (y
mwa' Dc '
m.
9s y
n a m. J
D'lf m, I
w
, ~.gluy o-
- f. %
.~- b~/
slg., >
d/
c~,c s,>
c> a %.
/^'> ' < t t uik Sh t
g /<. w.
L 71Le L4
}o a hn >,9 % p l)x >'3 bw
.~l~y ? N>
<9 Q
cr~c 4 p4 yg o-~+
an4 is b c.-.
.il n
p
>y hN Ig o.,'>/
ni/ w Dc 4.h
.s
($40.c h j.~' & d cr w ?
3
'h//x-,.n3
,4.[h)
/3M
)
a-3-
),
9 M
6 4//,
L/ #
4
, a.
l l > JL-kl.' O&
/ 4.
88'
). 9,., '-)
$.t, 4 ca -, a, d e s'l.
fn lme s~
'L,7
,/.d 9 M.
m a.s c
J.L 7 a
c m.f(4. p 7w,d k.c & b & -
v.
y
(&
fA 1<
,.),.
f,&
LL-l
, >>.e.
a t o.,e
. -/L M.,.1-9 h r, >
a.s -
X s
I, 0
I f
^7
I
,' (
l,(,-Q clAJ,
o-mf c/o-9 7z.@ - m 1, A ?
"q 2
NA"'d%ly' A -m > P d.L Y &, Y.
v3, b ') cc<lL y 73k,%
., 7 %
,h/L p
}Vf
/~o y~<d,' 69 %pv 7.y'
^~D~V.
n>< &.?p.
v-W ?C,-8. & '
- 24. ' h>l ~ h,
JJ r (b.,, c{
jp k
&l vgl]
q/sk v/
yy.
~ y
"'T l. lul
-s s h t, w, ly 2r (h/)2.'p (q
fw.
s w
24 ww
),)
w b bo n
h,wp,wivL
/ >~ ?
9
~
cvij y-r AL Law
,~
g> >.L
, l sp s du ~.
vk f^-o -
puu y y.
5 (p o p,'
5, d U
'~)Y v l, 4-:
ft.
T)>A w s f( It,. 3, 1 - a,
,v&; sur L:Lu v
-~
bd -
t'//w 'r
'/l bla ll 46 7 (c
l,-
wAy n -v~/ u.s$
wy
>3 5~
' S Fil
->1
.L
-/ G s yL
k 6
cLAj 23 TA, 3 6 [A e
up,lin j
toll>7 p
/ 9.
J z u
,6 /,d W A.,
i
, Ls/ / A /
p p
C. / s, h
se l-eb.l w.'he c&e b l
c4.4 i
u.
%> J
--IAy #y t
1, n
/
\\
(
' &,.s l
?
- ),
/\\.... o.
e x.
i-4 4
, L,, k ',
4
,Any 1
3>
,l..l ') ~ k L i
p bvp J,* hw, 3 A.~, L,h j 5.),. W Il e t (!)ogu r y
,< / %
~ f/
L
-w.y L
9 b
..e ai a jn
.. kap _ p aw y k kpW~ N (3)inl lA s
A b,, ou A
.A i
j y
ye--
W5-sk le.F b. 9
- n. L 4 cA A S11 A stL o
-s -en so I.( / pxp I-5
%.m.
mb l
c,14~/>~ 3 c. k)y n,t
-pu-l n.-
in,i f h '. p,,y tv) h l<
e ~ Wf Md-s s Nl b u ll u
\\
yn K5 GB d' M c)f sfu& N e
0A:
u-L
'A -
%,Fn > el.; 4.ex t k 4.<
l k
tY2/
J :kJ b l
p~%
- so / 7 clo
^
9.o ) h L i QA ty r i
fos~#S a %
gl/
/y M r-
%,4 b
1.
w 4
%>L n'f f
.5t}.h
. f n ) l tt-ekk, 4
I